APA Review Confirms Link Between Playing Violent Video Games and Aggression | Hacker News Reader

APA Review Confirms Link Between Playing Violent Video Games and Aggression

apa.org

35 pointsantouank58 comments

From the report:

   The link between violent video game exposure and aggressive
   behavior is one of the most studied and best established.
   Of the 31 studies reviewed, 14 investigated the relation
   between violent video game use and aggressive behaviors.
   Aggressive behavior measures included experimental proxy
   paradigms, such as the administration of hot sauce or
   a noise blast to a confederate, self-report questionnaires,
   peer nomination and teacher rating of aggressiveness.

If this is indeed the case, then there is cause for concern with these techniques, especially depending on the age group. [1] We further see self-reports mentioned as evidence for later factors, so as a whole I'm not sure what to think of this.

Moreover, the actually interesting question (does this aggressive behavior lead to real-world violence) is openly admitted to be unanswered. I'd wager that to a large extent basic measurements of "aggression" will be positive simply due to the player being engrossed by the game in question. The methods listed above in general are hardly that rigorous.

Furthermore:

   The research has also not adequately included samples
   representative of the current population demographics,
   nor has it sufficiently examined the potential differences
   in effects when participant samples have been diverse;
   no conclusions about differences in effects related to
   ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or culture can be
   drawn from the currently available research.

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2812902/

Call this confirmation bias or anecdotal evidence. I can relate to this study.

I only play a few video games. The most recent that I play is "ShadowGun - DeadZone" on my iPad. Its a MM first persons shooter centered around networked games of CTF or DeathMatch options. I love it. It helps me unwind and keeps me alert. Its damn fun.

However I can't play it when my kids are around. Kids are kids. However my tolerance for normal kid stuff (mistakes, arguments, things dropped, repetition of noises) drops significant after playing. I'm more short tempered. I'm more combative when I should be conciliatory. I've noticed it and I don't like myself afterwards. Its not helping me to be a good father.

I'm not singling out the game. Its me, so I've elected to delete it. I can re-install after bedtime or when I travel or never.

Anecdotal counterpoint. I believe your aggressiveness is due to the competitiveness, not the "violent" content of the game.

The video games I play are generally shooters (e.g. Halo series) or sports games (e.g. FIFA). I'm not a violent or aggressive person and video games have almost never made me upset. However, I tend to play mostly offline, either by myself or couch co-op with friends.

This past year, I started playing FIFA (soccer) online, against others. It's a rush because it's competitive, but for a while (during the learning curve) I was embarrassed and shocked by how much it affected my mood. After a bad session of FIFA, I was angry, short-tempered, aggressive and it easily bled into my actual life. I recognized this negative behavior and was able to stamp it out (which shouldn't be an accomplishment for a 30-something adult).

My point being, the trigger for me was not the content of the game (shooting vs. sports), but playing in an ultra-competitive environment against others, where winning comes at all costs (even unsportsmanlike tactics).

I imagine that if I went out to play a competitive soccer match (which I do play) and lost a tight game to an obnoxious opponent, I would also come home with higher than normal anger and aggressiveness - that is what competition can do to you, chemically.

> Anecdotal counterpoint. I believe your aggressiveness is due to the competitiveness, not the "violent" content of the game.

Abso-freakin'-lutely. I participate in a religious debate forum online, and when I find myself sucked into a conversation with a recalcitrant jerk who is actively trying to deceive people with slimy rhetorical tricks, I get so angry. And after I've had my say, I still find myself getting snippy with my wife and generally having a short temper.

I'd love to see the APA recommend against debating religion online. That would really help me improve my life and the relationships inside my family. Either that, or I show some self-discipline and simply stop participating. ;-)

I recommend against debating religion online. That sounds like a hobby for jerks. Do you enjoy being angry?

I recommend against calling people names because you don't like the nature of the conversations they have in their spare time.

I assure you, that kind of childish insult is even beneath the standards of the forum you apparently disdain so much.

I noticed that I got snippy with the family after I had my head stuck inside a partially disassembled dryer for a few hours over the weekend. And at the end of all that, I had to order a part, so the major problem still isn't fixed.

Attempting appliance repair was not helping me to be a better parent. All I wanted was to be left alone so I could curse at the stupid, broken machine properly, and so that it could feel bad about what it had done.

At least it's not one of the stupid low-flow toilets that require us to own one plunger per toilet, rather than one for the whole household. Nothing makes me more short-tempered than repairing a broken device around the household. Nothing. It is almost as though they are breaking themselves on purpose, just to annoy me with the need to fix or replace them.

But then I go murder creatures in a first-person action RPG for an hour or so, and I feel fine ...until the stupid cheap-ass Bluetooth dongle cuts out again, and my mouse and headphones stop working.

The worst that happens while I play is that I don't pay much attention to the spouse or kids while I'm doing it. But that's true for any solo game, and I'm not sure they would want my attention while I'm all grouchy from recent household repairs.

How do these findings stack against the fact that violent crimes in the U.S. Have been trending downward for decades, while violent game and media sales have been trending upwards? (And parental awareness and involvement have been trending upwards as well...)

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/...

http://videogames.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=00...

Violent crime rates are affected by literally hundreds of factors. There can be dozens of factors pushing the rate down and few dozen less pushing the rate up with the end result being we have an overall reduction.

Yes! You're right. This is true.

So... if the trend is down, and somehow games are a force for increase in tendencies, then something else is pushing down even faster than games are pushing it up. What might that be?

And what evidence do we have that games are pushing it up at all?

This study? That's my point, an overall trend in a statistic with multiple confounding variables says nothing at all about any specific variable. The study is either correct or flawed. The overall crime rate is NOT evidence against nor for the study.

Yeah, you're right. Sorry I'm not being clear & maybe sounding argumentative too. I'm really responding not to the study itself, and not to the direct conclusions they make, but to the suggestions and implications they leave open.

The study says one thing, but the presentation says something else, and it is implying that this is a stepping stone to showing that violent games do affect the crime rate, and "negative outcomes" in general for children who play violent video games.

I'm responding to this speculation. You're right that the overall crime rate doesn't say anything about this study, but it does say something about the implication they're trying to make in this press release, and the future work and courses of action they suggest in this study's conclusions.

Ah, got it. Yeah, I hate that section of papers; "I've shown small, isolated result X. Perhaps this implies large, wildly extraordinarily speculative claim Y."

First off. The report links violence in video games to "increases in aggressive behavior, aggressive cognitions and aggressive affect, and decreases in prosocial behavior, empathy and sensitivity to aggression", NOT violent crimes.

Secondly, (http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations) just as correlation does not imply causation, a lack of correlation does not imply a lack of causation.

You're absolutely right, and FWIW, I'm perfectly clearly on the distinction between correlation and causation, or lack thereof.

But tell me this: if they're not talking about violence, why do the words "violent", "violence" and "violently" occur 23 times in that 1-page summary? The root "aggress" occurs at less than half that rate.

They spend a lot of time implying, suggesting, and speculating on links between "aggressive behavior" and "violent behavior." They were indeed careful to say the research doesn't support a conclusion about violence, however this summary is clearly written to induce the fear that the kind of aggression they're talking about and violent behaviors might be linked.

  “Rather, it is the accumulation of risk factors that 
  tends to lead to aggressive *or violent behavior*. 
  The research reviewed here demonstrates that violent 
  video game use is one such risk factor.”

  “What researchers need to do now is conduct studies 
  that look at the effects of video game play in people 
  at risk for aggression *or violence* due to a 
  combination of risk factors."

(emphasis mine)

2- They raise "concerns" and conclude that action needs to be taken. The single conclusive action they suggest is one that I just provided evidence for already haven taken place on a large scale for many years.

3- Why are we talking about correlation and causation, when there's no correlation in the first place? That's the root of my question above. Yes, they're only claiming "aggression" and dancing around "violent" behavior, but they explicitly state more research need to be done to see if there are links. So, what is the concern, and why is there a need for research when in reality there is an overall inverse correlation between violent games and violent behavior?

* edited for formatting

And, BTW, let me add that as a concerned parent of children who's lives have been taken over by video games, I can accept and agree with the statement that when kids play video games, they get more "aggressive". Temporarily.

The get more aggressive for a while. My kids and their friends play Super Smash Bros for a few hours, and then when they stop and go outside, they play fight for a while, they act out Super Smash Bros.

I remember playing Wipeout XL in college and feeling like I was driving around on a race track when I'd get into a real car after that. My driving record, however, is spotless and I generally drive like a grandpa.

Playing racing games made me temporarily fast & swervy. My kids playing fighting games makes them temporarily punchy. But overall, I haven't witnessed a permanent behavioral change.

My concern with this report isn't whether it is right or wrong, I can believe that "aggressive behavior" increases when playing games, especially games that require aggressive behavior to win. My concern is with how it is being used, and what it is being used to imply.

They spend a lot of time talking about violence to say they're not talking about violence directly, which just draws an implication between aggression and violence. They didn't, however, spend several paragraphs talking about how there might be a link between aggression after playing games and people becoming successful entrepreneurs, aggressive stock traders, world class athletes, or renowned scientists. Those are all occupations that require "aggressive" behavior and for which "aggressive" behavior is celebrated.

There has been so much speculation and FUD surrounding a potential connection between violent video games and violent crime; it's tempting and easy to blame things like mass shootings on violent video games. I appreciate you're not doing that

Personally I do not believe there is a noteworthy connection between violent games and violent crimes. Anecdotal, but I myself played plenty of violent games and I'm a borderline pacifist. I don't even kill bugs if I can help it. (Exceptions made for things that try to eat me or my food...) I just enjoy the competitive nature of the games.

My only point in all this is that critiquing this study because there's a negative correlation between violent video game usage and violent crimes on a societal level is contributing to uncertainty and doubt parts of the FUD. Rather, I would critique the report itself for appearing (as you noted) to be fairly FUDsy and as other commentators have noted, not particularly rigourous.

I watched a documentary on this the other night, which seemed to imply that the aggression was caused by the level of challenge, not by the onscreen violence. I think this was the study that was cited.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/04/study-games-link-to-ag...

To get another perspective on this read this article:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/08/18/apa-studies-video...

from the link, emphasis mine: "In 2013, 230 academics and scientists signed an open letter stating their objection to the claims being made by the APA, calling them “misleading and alarmist”."

A counter point could be that playing violent games would allow people to vent out their aggression in a safe way so that they don't take it out on us. I am curious if there is a study that links playing (violent)sports with more violent tendencies, because the reasoning seems similar. Also it goes without saying correlation != causation(Just for fun please try http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations)

There's some research that indicates that the "venting anger" theory leads to the opposite, i.e. more anger, not less.

[1] http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bbushman/PSPB02.pdf (quick google, there are certainly better and more up-to-date papers).

I skimmed through the paper and they used a punching bag for venting out frustration. I think that and video games are fundamentally different. Punching bag do not give you a sense of objective fulfillment which video games do. Also video games generally have group dynamics, even in quite a few of single player games. But agreeing with you on the broad point, other research papers do suggest that violent games increase aggression. Although another interesting link(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/08/violent-video-games... :the actual paper is behind a paywall) seems to suggest that it is not violence but our failure to master the game play that causes anger.

Would be interesting to figure out whether the different methods "used for venting out" anger make any difference. I do agree that playing a game is different from punching a bag though, takes more intellectual skills and such, yet I for one remain convinced that the problem persists – whether it's punching a bag or hunting bots.

I can certainly believe there's a link. It seems intuitive that a violent individual would be attracted to violent games. But to go from noticing a link to suggesting more stringent parental controls isn't particularly well thought out.

Owning a Porsche has been linked to improved cancer outcomes, let's give luxury sedans to people battling cancer...

> It seems intuitive that a violent individual would be attracted to violent games.

The aggressive people I encounter outside the bars in my town seem to be sports fans and weightlifters, not video game players.

"""[...] but insufficient evidence exists about whether the link extends to criminal violence or delinquency [...]"""

Keep in mind: the APA is also the professional psychological organization that signed-off on torture, and gave it a veneer of medical legitimacy.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/07/te...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/01/us/report-says-american-ps...

In fact there was a minor scandal that senior members of the APA in fact backed CIA rendition / "enhanced interrogation" methods... Hippocratic Oath not withstanding.

APA (the one from the linked article) - American Psychological Association - no hippocratic oath - www.apa.org

APA - American Psychiatric Association - hippocratic oath - www.psychiatry.org

According to [1] it was the first of these that it was the psychological association that did this. So a Hippocratic oath violation would not seem to a valid criticism of these guys.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/01/us/report-says-american-ps...

Wow, I didn't even know there were two APAs... Well, I guess this is why trademark protection is a thing.

There's also a confirmed link (in western societies) between being poor and being overweight. Though I'm pretty certain we all realise not having money does not cause your body to accumulate fat. Correlation != causation [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_cau...

In that case, higher stress, lesser-quality food, limited means to exercise for pleasure, et al. related to being poorer do contribute directly to physical health and being overweight.

I feel like something is missing. Aggressive/violent people might have a preference and tendency for violent games (seems obvious, but I don't want to jump to conclusions) over, for example, puzzle, casual sports, adventure, or any other non-violent games.

I grew up on all sorts of violent games and violent anime, and I'd never hurt a fly. I don't even enjoy them that much, but I still enjoy them and play them.

You'll also find various types of players (profiles?) when playing. If you ever see me on the top 3 in the scoreboard, it's probably because I've captured flags rather than because of my Kill/Death ratio. I guess our existing personalities become part of the way we play the game, and not the other way round.

Sounds like a load of rubbish.

Spend an hour at any little league soccer game anywhere, and you'll find most parents there shouting and imploring their children to "be more aggressive" the entire game.

I haven't read the full report yet, but this summary on the one hand takes care to separate the research conclusions between "aggressive" behavior and "violent" or "criminal" behavior, even though it doesn't specify what "aggressive behavior" means, and then seems to turn around and intentionally conflate the two for speculation purposes at every turn.

Since this task Force is about violent media, it would be very interesting to see how film or music change people. Through out the 80s and 90s we had a bunch of studies linking movie violence to increase aggression, violence in kids, and criminal behavior. Music has also seem to been claimed as an risk factor for delinquency behavior in the last 100 years or so, and before that I assume it was books and poetry.

There does look to be a pattern here, so should we just wait a 20-100 years until games will be proven innocent and the next thing can be blamed?

I've been playing video games long enough now that I've seen this as a major claim three times now throughout my life. I'm willing to bet this will fade away the same as the previous two times. I'm close to being convinced this is just a scam to take advantage of an easy target to make money.

Eh, I don't know about violence, but I'm pretty sure games teach people to:

Secure a weapon - and use it if necessary for the following:

Secure shelter;

Secure food and water;

Secure transportation;

When in a bad situation. I don't know if it's a bad thing or a good thing.

We've been taught to stick together and help each other in hard times, video games kinda teach us the opposite - fight for yourself/your team and the use of force is acceptable.

Maybe it ingrains itself in our subconsciousness.

Then again, I laugh at how people in The Walking Dead break up in groups that treat each other with extreme suspicion or hostility; surely Americans aren't crazy and would all work together if something bad happened?

I think its all about competition and the level of challenge a game has that makes people more aggressive. However I think the aggression fades very quickly.

I play a lot of games. Two games right now fight for my attention HOTS and Mad Max. I actually had to take a break from HOTS this weekend because I had gotten into argument with a friend over a stupid play. So I switched to Mad Max and kind of washed away my anger. Mad Max is not a very frustrating game has just enough challenge for me to stay interested.

With that all said in most cases just breaking from the activity after several minutes I will be back to normal.

APA Review Confirms Link Between Watching Scary Movies and Fear

APA Review Confirms Link Between Relaxing on the Beach and Serenity

APA Review Confirms Link Between Reading Nihilistic Poetry and Ennui

Entertainment media are specifically designed to elicit an emotional response. Books, movies, games, music, if they didn't make you feel something then why would you buy it?

If we dislike being afraid so much, why would we seek out a game like Amnesia: The Dark Descent or a movie like Saw? Could it be because despite the emotional response, we're still rational actors with a firm grip on the separation of fantasy and reality?

I definitely wouldn't be surprised if there's a link. My immediate concern is whether or not this APA study will give more bait to legislators. It is an election year after all.

Give me a break. "Link" should be a huge warning flag that weasel words, non sequiturs, and good 'ol conflations of causation/correlation are ahead.

None of these studies are randomized trials. All we've learned is that aggressive kids prefer violent video games to non-violent ones. It's useless.

While they're at it, could they research the link between playing pinball games and aggression too?

I don't remember ever playing any violent pinball games.

I think I understand what he's talking about. I do remember seeing people becoming aggressive while playing games like pong, dig dug and pinball.

Come to think of it I've seen the same kind of aggression in other play as well(Basketball, Tennis, etc).

I have to wonder if the aggression that is mentioned isn't due to violence in those games and due more to frustration?

Lots of video game players coming out of the woodwork in this thread with low-content reckons.

Someone should a study to test the link between aggression and assembling IKEA furniture.

I think they made a movie about a violent guy who liked IKEA furniture.

I don't know about you guys, but I don't play violent video games because I'm a violent person. I don't even think specifically about the violence.

I think that one of the important outlets of video games is letting you do or experience things that you wouldn't experience in real life.

Even if that means driving a car up the sidewalk at a fancy outdoor mall and running over scores of people.

Before we accept this as gospel, can we confirm a link between psychology and science?

I really, really doubt it. Take me for example. Mortal Kombat Fatalities were my past time activity, now I feel a bit guilty if I eat beef.

Your empathy would be a little more plausible if you did not rip the heart out of the live cow before you ate it.

But do you feel aggressively guilty?

Is this reproducible?

What about the link of being aggressive, and playing violent video games?

The APA is a joke.

On the other hand, if they ship policy with -every review- as just now, and can get rid of the bit where resolutions endorse (getting s'mo data and intervening it where we pay them to get it intervened,) I won't be tempted to shred them to pieces. I mean, put them in a theraputic chilled bath without depth inhibitions, and with appropriately sized workstones. From newsrelease: 'The picture from the survey is more complex than usually covered in news...' faint praise. Mark Appelbaum! I'm callin' you out!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com